Final answer:
The Gideon v. Wainwright decision relates to Justice Black's dissenting opinion in Betts v. Brady by ultimately realizing Black's view that the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel for all defendants, regardless of their financial status. The Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Gideon mandated that states must provide legal counsel to indigent defendants facing felony charges.
Step-by-step explanation:
The decision in Gideon v. Wainwright is directly related to Justice Black's dissent in Betts v. Brady. In Betts v. Brady, the majority ruled that indigent defendants could be denied counsel by states, a decision that was challenged by Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion. Gideon v. Wainwright overturned the Betts decision by establishing that all defendants, regardless of their ability to pay, have the right to an attorney, thus bringing the reasoning of Black's dissent to fruition.
In Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence E. Gideon was prosecuted for felony charges but lacked the funds to hire a lawyer. After representing himself and being convicted, Gideon appealed on the grounds that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The 1963 ruling by the Supreme Court was unanimous; it mandated that states are obligated to provide legal counsel for defendants facing felony criminal charges if they cannot afford one, thus reinforcing the right to a fair trial.